I’m of the belief that there needs to be a “lobby” where new people try out software to decide whether they like it, and federation is important for spreading word of mouth.
On the other hand, #Meta has done horrible things to people, and I will never be their friend so long as Zuck and co. run the show.
I question @film_girl@mastodon.social’s assumptions that in order to decentralize we must roll out the welcome mat to the biggest centralizing force on the Internet.
But this isn’t just about centralization, it’s about a well-known peddled of evil arriving on the scene. And I’m not being hyperbolic here. Meta is to social media what Dow is to chemicals.
To everyone who expresses concerns about Meta—you’re right!
@film_girl@mastodon.social Is it kneejerk? I’ve been in the social media business for 15 years, and there’s not a month that goes by in which Meta doesn’t do something morally repugnant.
In fact, I post those stories every day.
I don’t care how good Meta’s engineers are. They’ve done some of the most rotten and morally questionable things ever in the Internet. Because of Meta’s actions, people have died.
You think people are “just” being kneejerk about that? Next to Zuck, Musk is a Boy Scout.
@atomicpoet I’m not suggesting or even encouraging anyone to roll out a welcome mat! I am saying that making knee-jerk announcements about preemptive bans and encouraging others to do so too is stupid and bad and against the goals that many of those same people claim to have, which is to encourage the usage of decentralized protocols.
@atomicpoet I have also been in the social media business for 15+ years. The implementation isn’t even out yet! And you are free to make any decision you want for whatever reason you want. I’m not a bootlicker b/c I think people getting riled up over a rumored integration should slow their roll and take a deep breath first and that people starting brigades and shit over a screenshot should chill out. Or that if you don’t want people to use your software, you shouldn’t make it open source.
@atomicpoet Shitty instances are silenced all the time and they've earned the distrust through their behaviour. How many people are here specifically because Meta is awful? Full federation feels like a Trojan horse. Silencing seems like a reasonable default position - maybe limit if they prove to not be a bad actor. @film_girl@mastodon.social
@Uraael@atomicpoet there’s always a winner/dominant player. That doesn’t mean multiple things can’t coexist and even have their own robust communities, but there’s always a winner. This is especially true in open standards. Winning isn’t important to everyone and that’s good. But a whole bunch of people who are very vocal sure want Activity Pub more broadly (tho most are focused on Mastodon almost exclusively) to win.
In fact, we’d be altogether better if Twitter, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok simply believed social media wasn’t a viable business because everyone simply ran their own personal social media server on commodity hardware. Maybe even on their smartphones.
Social media will truly be revolutionary when nothing dominates and nobody wins.
The more widespread the A-pub protocol becomes, the more choice users have. But I agree we need to be absolutely certain about who we federate with, and Meta can absolutely get fucked. #TheLeopardAteMyFace
@atomicpoet@Uraael I don’t disagree with that and that’s a lovely ideal. But there is always a winner and a dominant standard. I’m not saying that I like that but I’m far too much of a realist to pretend otherwise.
@atomicpoet@Uraael I fully agree with your last sentence, but my argument is that there will be a dominant protocol because there always is. Always. Not saying there will be an exclusive one, but a dominant one. My money today would probably be on AP, but who can say.